Wednesday, November 12, 2008

the question is what NOT to blog about

Ohio grandma gives birth to daughter's triplets
Weird. Ewwww. Yuck. and again I say... Weird!

Air rage passenger duct-taped to seat "Flight attendants were forced to duct tape a passenger to her seat after she allegedly hit the buttocks of one of the crew and fell on a blind passenger."
T&A would be soooooo all over this! We miss you T&A and hope you are well. You promised an autumnal return, well, fall is here. We wantcha back!!!!! :)

I can't even begin to blog quickly enough about all the awful things that are happening in the world right now because more and more keep showing up.

Murder, death, rape, kidnappings, the wretched economy and smiling politicians planning to make it all better by taking away more of our freedoms and more of our rights and expecting us to thank them for the privilege of their loss.

Five homeless found shot dead
Poor bastards.


The new get rich quick scheme in Mexico is the ole ransom the child scheme.
Five suspected kidnappers, including a woman and a 17-year-old youth who knew the victim's family, had sought a 300,000-peso ($34,000) ransom after kidnapping the child on October 26, Mexico City's prosecutor's office said. Kidnappers killed a five-year-old boy by injecting acid into his heart after finding out police were closing in on them, prosecutors in Mexico say.
So they took the kid, hoping to wring money from his poor broke family, thought they were going to get caught and killed the poor tyke.


Australia's compulsory internet filtering 'costly, ineffective'

The Federal Government is planning to make internet censorship compulsory for all Australians and could ban controversial websites on euthanasia or anorexia.

Australia's level of net censorship will put it in the same league as countries including China, Cuba, Iran and North Korea, and the Government will not let users opt out of the proposed national internet filter when it is introduced.



Big Brother is here. You will be watched and we will take care of you. One way or another.

Now now, not to fear, they will do a test run. "The pilot will specifically test filtering against the ACMA blacklist of prohibited content, which is mostly child pornography, as well as filtering of other unwanted content," Senator Conroy told Parliament.

Other unwanted content. Determined by whom? Who the fuck are you to determine what I look at on the internet?? What constitutes unwanted content? Content that is anti-Kevin Rudd? Content that says the Aussie National Anthem is a boring piece of twaddle? Content that says "Everybody should fuck a kangaroo at least once?"

My daughter is 100% safe from predators online. Because I am her mother and I control the access she has to the internet. My kid. My responsibility.

And if I want to read about how to kill myself or starve myself thin, who the fuck are you to tell me otherwise?

Get the government the FUCK out of my life!!!!!!!

7 comments:

Protium the Heathen said...

Wow.. your pissed off!

I agree, this filtering is a theistardic abomination... C.U.N.T.S.(Christians Utilising New Technology Stupidly)are involved.

Richard said...

I agree, but one matter is difficult: child pornography (CP)!

I believe CP can be dealt with in ways other than clamping down on Internet freedom.

The ready access by nearly anyone to view a naked child —or worse than naked— is a despicable violation of the child's personal Liberty. The more mature mind of the child, once old enough to understand, would never consent to it.

I therefore see CP as sexual assault to *view* or *possess* the images, let alone *create* them. The CPers should be charged on those terms.

Leave the Internet free, and use the Internet to track the bastards down.

Fiery said...

There's nothing at all difficult about child pornography.

The ISP filtering they are implementing will do NOTHING to stop child pornographers or even slow them down more than a momentary glitch or two. They already use peer to peer networks and IRC chat rooms etc which is impossible to filter.

Their solution does NOTHING to fight the problem they are pretending to battle.

It's about power and control. Not about protection.

As per usual with the government.

ozatheist said...

Fiery is right (hey she's a woman and women are always right. Right? LOL) the filter does nothing to prevent child porn, or worse pedophilia.

But this is one of the problems (as I mentioned in a recent blog of mine) in that as soon as you mention child porn everyone has to agree with you or you look like some sort of monster. This is how Conroy is getting away with this draconian legislation. The media are somewhat scared of outright calling his idea stupid for fear of being labeled pedophiles.

It's all about the fear.

Richard said...

Fiery wrote:
"There's nothing at all difficult about child pornography."

I am not sure why you said that.

Yes, CP is wrong. Yes, the authorities are ineffective at stopping it, let alone giving adequate punishment to the perps.

The recent approach to regulating the Internet, the details of which I do not know, sounds like gun control:
When all is said and done,
Only criminals have guns.

You have listed all the negative stuff about the CP networks, and the State's inept solutions. So it seems there is difficulty.

How would police (& the courts) become effective at identifying and capturing pedoporn queens, without violating the rights of ordinary people?

We are obviously on the same side, but I am not sure what you are advocating.

Fiery said...

Warning "He said, She said" comment to follow

Richard said- "I agree, but one matter is difficult: child pornography (CP)!"

The specific article and part of the post in question is about ISP level filtering. If you look into the proposed filtering at all, you will find that it does absolutely NOTHING to slow down and discourage child pornography or pedophilia.

So I said to Richard- "There's nothing at all difficult about child pornography."

And the reason I said that is in the debate about "ohh ohh we want Australia to be like China and only have access to government approved webites", child pornography and pedophilia is a NON ISSUE because the government filter does absolutely FUCK ALL to prevent it. Therefore. It is inappropriate for advocates of the ISP filter to say, "but, but the filtering is for the children. Do you want child pornography to continue?"

ISP filtering is not about child pornography. It is a red herring used to push through a bullshit restriction of Aussie freedoms and is a smoke screen that should be dealt with only as such.

You want to prevent or eliminate child pornography or pedophilia that is a completely different subject and not one that I have any solutions for. But I will say this, ISP level filtering will not stop a single pervert from getting there hands on underage pooter.

What am I advocating? Keeping the government the FUCK out of my internet access. There are other ways to catch criminals then unwarranted searches and seizures of every kB of information that comes to my computer. Do you have a warrant to search it? Do you have a reason to suspect me? Then get the fuck out of my cyberspace.

Richard said...

I''l take the you as the "royal" or "plural" form, b/c I totally agree! It is despicable.

So much for free speech, which is totally different from, and amounts to betraying, the rights of children!!

It utterly reveals the morality of these bastards. They really could not give a damn if your family is blown up by some Muslim's bomb, but get all excited about the chance to control whether we look at anorexia sites.

Warning: the same thing is coming to all of North America... perhaps via Obama's resurrection of the "Fairness Doctrine" (FD).

Some background via Wikipedia: the FD was introduced in 1949 to encourage voluntary representation of different viewpoints by the media. Except, anyone who wanted to was already free to present those viewpoints.

However, various court cases were used by individuals or groups who wanted to use the FD to force media to present their arguments or suppress the arguments of others.

E.g., journalist Fred J. Cook, after the publication of his Goldwater: Extremist of the Right, was the topic of discussion by Billy James Hargis on his daily Christian Crusade radio broadcast. Mr. Cook sued, arguing that the FCC’s fairness doctrine entitled him to free air time to respond to the personal attacks.

By that logic, freedom of speech apparently includes the right to force others to provide you with an audience.

To wit: "Two corollary rules of the doctrine, the 'personal attack' rule and the 'political editorial' rule, remained in practice until 2000. The 'personal attack' rule applied whenever a person (or small group) was subject to a personal attack during a broadcast. Stations had to notify such persons (or groups) within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said and offer the opportunity to respond on-the-air. The 'political editorial' rule applied when a station broadcast editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulated that the unendorsed candidates be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond".

Both Reagan and Bush Sr. blocked efforts to increase the invasiveness of the FD.

Conversely, both Obama & McCain campaigned on the FD, though in small degree! That indicates both Parties believed it would garner them votes! (Yes, the Democrats are more supportive of it.)

So once again, regulation of the media is widely supported, not to protect rights (of children) but to increase political power by violating Freedom of Speech.

The fact is neither the Left nor the Right have any genuine respect for Individual Rights —even in the U.S.A., the one nation of people who ought to fight to protect them!

So, what about child porn and child stalking?